The Development of Ceramics in Australia

Conclusion

The conclusion of this paper has proved to be the beginning of a complex journey in finding answers to the questions raised over the past months.

In terms of ceramic sculpture and installation how is language determined? Is it to be based in the figurative or the sculptural? If it is to be based in the sculptural then, as Sue Rowley argues, is there a need for formal training in that discipline? If based in the figurative then is it not necessary to develop and value it's own language and history? Do we have the academics interested and willing to evoke debate and critical discourse to encompass clay or is it still, some thirty years later, potters writing about potters?

Can we unravel this monolithic structure McGrath refers to? Is the adopted language and values of the art world an appropriate language? Is it more appropriate to value crafts own social, political and technological history - to analyse and critique it's own journeys and record them defining it's own language? After being at art school for three years I heard it said that the glass department considered themselves part of the 'art' debate whilst the ceramic department was still floundering around in 'craft'. An interesting perception - one craft discipline had 'cracked' it into the art world whilst another had not.

Is the ceramic discipline being progressive by keeping itself separate, defined and technical? With current trends and a movement into multi-disciplines is it necessary for institutions to take this on board? One point of view, expressed by Susan Ostling, is to amalgamate with sculptural departments. Is this truly progressive or retro? Did the ceramic disciple travel through the fifties, sixties and seventies gaining acknowledgement and autonomy in art institutions to now willingly return to ambiguity?

Are institutions gaining a monopoly in the arts? Does this cause homogenisation and where does this leave artists not involved in the institutional process? Is this a world trend and does it create a stranglehold on creativity? Does it speak of the intrinsic nature of man - to understand through control? Are institutions capable of looking at themselves, to reflect and make progressive changes?

The question of specialisation has been broached on many occasions. With the current decline in interest should institutions be looking at ways of specializing, separate institutions offering research, multi-disciplines and technical skills - the creation of educational centres?

During the seventies and eighties fads and fashions were quick to move through periods of five years. Are we now too caught up in the era of post-modernism, unable to move forward? If so why is there this unwillingness to move? Has the industry become so competitive and defined artists are unable to develop ideas freely? Has this caused stagnation? Is there a need for the artist to be less obsessed with the social structures of 'art' and the 'art world' and a little more obsessed with moving into 'the concerns of the creative process' in a social and political arena? Would these changes be supported?

If the potter has become obsessed by the "nature of his materials" is he/she making a move away from a clay discipline? Is it not then the responsibility of the potter/artist to embrace these changes and explore the need of a broader vocabulary? As the artist "speaks" through a "visual" voice is it necessary for the artist to become involved in complex theoretical discussions? Are we stuck in a quagmire of confusion between historian, academic and artist?

Is there enough lobbying in government for a cultural existence within Australia? Do the visual arts in general take their place amongst the arts in Australia? Do they get the coverage and recognition to inform the public? Has the audience been neglected? Are we looking from a potential consumer's point of view only? Has 'art for the people' been truly defeated by 'art for the elite' and 'art for consumption'?

As we move into the twenty-first century where does the handcrafted object fit in society? Is it obsolete, outgrown it's own purpose? Can it still signify social commentary, as Susan Cohn says, offering cultural critique and values? Is it still possible for a social commentary to unfold where we learn about our political and social worlds and our physical environment?

More questions than answers have emerged. I am keen to continue my research into answering these questions and to stimulate ongoing discussions, critique and ideas. Reading material and articles are most welcome.